AirPods With Cameras Could Arrive Sooner Than Expected

[tech_enthusiast_]

Of course. Apple is famous for their products designed for blind people.

They quite literally have dozens of accessibility features designed to make their products useable by people with low and no vision. Also, the LOW and no vision part is critical. Not everyone who needs vision accessibility technology is completely blind. Hundreds of millions of people have what is considered to be low vision.

 

[Mr_Ed]

Unsure if your comment was sarcasm or not but, It's really not that far fetched when looking at all assistive and accessibility functionality in iOS or macOS. Matter of fact the hearing aid feature incorporated in APP2 and APP3 is a perfect example of this.

Use the Hearing Aid feature on your AirPods Pro 2 or AirPods Pro 3 - Apple Support

AirPods Pro 2 and AirPods Pro 3 provide a clinical-grade Hearing Aid feature for perceived mild to moderate hearing loss, as well as a Media Assist feature that enhances the clarity of music, video, and calls.

support.apple.com

I think the intent of some of the comments here is to point out that Apple does not set out make assistive devices aimed at the small subset of the population that needs them. Sure, they often add features to facilitate use of their products, but their products are first and foremost, mass market consumer goods.

I really don’t think most people would object to an occasional encounter with someone wearing a purpose built assistive device using similar technology because their situation justifies its use. But that’s clearly not what we are talking about with consumer products from Apple, Samsung, Meta, etc.

 

[tech_enthusiast_]

I think the intent of some of the comments here is to point out that Apple does not set out make assistive devices aimed at the small subset of the population that needs them. Sure, they often add features to facilitate use of their products, but their products are first and foremost, mass market consumer goods.

I really don’t think most people would object to an occasional encounter with someone wearing a purpose built assistive device using similar technology because their situation justifies its use. But that’s clearly not what we are talking about with consumer products from Apple, Samsung, Meta, etc.

I think the issue is that commenters are thinking about accessibility in a very narrow way. Accessibility isn't strictly about creating a tool that's purpose-built for physically disabled people. The Apple Watch is an accessibility tool, in that one of its key purposes is to give all users access to health information that can and does often inform them about conditions that they weren't aware of—from simple stuff like low step count to major stuff like atrial fibrillation. AirPods with live translation are an accessibility tool because they enable people to communicate across barriers (theoretically). These are things that benefit all users by increasing accessibility to tools and information.

 

[Mr_Ed]

I think the issue is that commenters are thinking about accessibility in a very narrow way. Accessibility isn't strictly about creating a tool that's purpose-built for physically disabled people. The Apple Watch is an accessibility tool, in that one of its key purposes is to give all users access to health information that can and does often inform them about conditions that they weren't aware of—from simple stuff like low step count to major stuff like atrial fibrillation. AirPods with live translation are an accessibility tool because they enable people to communicate across barriers (theoretically). These are things that benefit all users by increasing accessibility to tools and information.

I don’t disagree with your broader definition of “accessibility” as a concept, and Apple making their consumer devices more accessible is fine. The core issue for me (and perhaps some others), and the reason I choose to make the distinction between purpose built assistive devices and general consumer products, is the trust factor.

As I understand it (and I’m no expert) such devices are produced to solve specific problems on behalf of those with applicable conditions/challenges. They are designed from the ground up with that purpose as the primary requirement, and (in the US) they have to meet strict requirements for privacy and security. It is understood they are produced in relatively low numbers, which combined with the requirements they have to meet, makes the devices expensive.

Given where we are with technology today, I have zero reason to trust the companies making general consumer tech products will continue to respect my privacy as a user, or that of those around me if they see a way to make a buck out of it. All they have to do os change the EULA, which they warned us from the start they could change. To me, claims that a device someone is wearing will not allow the user to take pictures or video mean nothing if it is still feeding an AI back end with data about me or my surroundings.

 

[lfaa]

Really feels like a “solution looking for a problem” to me.

Yeah some people are really skilled for that!

 

[tech_enthusiast_]

I don’t disagree with your broader definition of “accessibility” as a concept, and Apple making their consumer devices more accessible is fine. The core issue for me (and perhaps some others), and the reason I choose to make the distinction between purpose built assistive devices and general consumer products, is the trust factor.

As I understand it (and I’m no expert) such devices are produced to solve specific problems on behalf of those with applicable conditions/challenges. They are designed from the ground up with that purpose as the primary requirement, and (in the US) they have to meet strict requirements for privacy and security. It is understood they are produced in relatively low numbers, which combined with the requirements they have to meet, makes the devices expensive.

Given where we are with technology today, I have zero reason to trust the companies making general consumer tech products will continue to respect my privacy as a user, or that of those around me if they see a way to make a buck out of it. All they have to do os change the EULA, which they warned us from the start they could change. To me, claims that a device someone is wearing will not allow the user to take pictures or video mean nothing if it is still feeding an AI back end with data about me or my surroundings.

Oh absolutely, not disagreeing with you there at all. Definitely many privacy concerns regardless of the intended use.